United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Mathis filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Marcus Hardy, Darryl Edwards, Imhotep Carter, and Holli
Logan, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Doc. 1. At all relevant
times, Mathis was an inmate at Stateville Correctional
Center; Hardy was Stateville's warden; Edwards was its
assistant warden of programs; Carter was its medical
director; and Logan was a nurse. Id. at 2-3. The
court recruited counsel on Mathis's behalf, Docs. 44, 45,
and Mathis later retained additional counsel, Docs. 50, 52,
55. Discovery has closed, and a jury trial is set for April
24, 2017. Doc. 175. Defendants have moved for summary
judgment, and also to strike certain exhibits submitted by
Mathis. Docs. 165, 168, 188. The motions are granted.
following facts are stated as favorably to Mathis as
permitted by the record and Local Rule 56.1. See Woods v.
City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 2015). In
considering Defendants' motions, the court must assume
the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them.
See Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., 805 F.3d 278, 281
(7th Cir. 2015).
had a pacemaker when he entered state prison in 2005. Doc.
182 at ¶ 9. On August 15, 2011, he had pacemaker
replacement surgery at an outside hospital. Id. at
¶¶ 13-14. There were no apparent clinical problems
with the surgical site when he was discharged on August 16,
id. at ¶ 15, and there were no signs of
infection when Dr. Carter saw him at Stateville later that
day. Id. at ¶ 19; Doc. 185 at ¶ 8. Dr.
Carter prescribed some pain medication and antibiotics to
ward off infection. Doc. 182 at ¶ 20; Doc. 185 at ¶
soon became concerned about how the surgical site felt and
looked. Doc. 192 at ¶ 4. He experienced pain and light
bleeding, and felt something protruding from his chest area.
Doc. 185 at ¶ 13. On August 23, he went to
Stateville's Healthcare Unit but was not seen by a
doctor. Id. at ¶ 11. On August 25, he submitted
an emergency grievance to the Warden's office, claiming
that he was experiencing pain and still had not been seen by
a doctor. Id. at ¶ 12. That is the only
grievance Mathis submitted that is related to this lawsuit.
Doc. 182 at ¶ 5. The next day, on August 26, Mathis was
taken to the Healthcare Unit and seen by a nurse (not Logan)
because Dr. Carter was unavailable. Doc. 185 at ¶ 13.
August 28, Logan walked by Mathis's cell during her
medicine rounds. Doc. 181 at ¶ 31. Mathis asked for help
and showed her the incision; Logan told him that it was
infected but that nobody was available to take care of it.
Ibid. Medical technician Andrea Bacot took Mathis to
the Healthcare Unit later that day. Doc. 185 at ¶ 16.
Bacot noticed redness and dried mucus at the surgical site,
and she cleaned and dressed it. Id. at ¶¶
16-17. Mathis's medical records show that there was no
medical emergency or need to see a doctor that day.
Id. at ¶ 18.
on August 23, Mathis sent letters to Hardy and Edwards
through the regular prison mail stating that he needed to be
seen by a doctor about an infection in his chest.
Id. at ¶¶ 9, 19; Doc. 192 at ¶¶
4-5. Mathis saw Hardy and Edwards before August 30 and
reiterated his need to be examined. Doc. 185 at ¶ 26.
Hardy told Mathis that he would “take care of
Carter examined Mathis on August 30. Id. at ¶
20. He observed mild surface inflammation at the surgical
site and concluded that it was infected, but saw no evidence
that the infection was spreading. Id. at
¶¶ 20-21. Dr. Carter prescribed a ten-day course of
broad-spectrum antibiotics and scheduled an appointment a
week later. Id. at ¶ 20; Doc. 182 at ¶ 48.
A broad-spectrum antibiotic treats a wide variety of
infections, which can make it unnecessary to identify the
specific bacterium causing the infection. Doc. 182 at ¶
49. The Warden's Office returned Mathis's grievance
the next day, declining to treat it as an emergency. Doc. 185
at ¶ 22.
was scheduled for a follow-up appointment on September 8, but
it was cancelled due to a lockdown. Id. at ¶
23. Dr. Carter next saw Mathis on September 13. Doc. 182 at
¶ 52. Mathis's medical chart indicates that the site
was clean and uninfected and that he otherwise appeared
healthy. Id. at ¶ 53; Doc. 185 at ¶ 24.
Dr. Carter prescribed a triple antibiotic ointment to prevent
the inflammation from returning. Doc. 182 at ¶ 56.
Carter saw Mathis again on September 26. Doc. 185 at ¶
25. He noted that Mathis's vital signs were stable and
that the surgical site appeared healthy, but that Mathis was
still experiencing pain in his chest area. Ibid. Dr.
Carter testified that the pain was caused by the surgery
itself and the normal healing process. Doc. 182 at
¶¶ 63-64. Mathis asserts that those opinions were
not founded on medical science or a reasonable degree of
medical certainty. Ibid.
Claims Against Nurse Logan
claims against Logan cannot proceed because he failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies against her. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act states that “[n]o action shall be
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983
… until such administrative remedies as are available
are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see
Porter v. Nussle,534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002);
Hernandez v. Dart, 814 F.3d 836, 841-42 (7th Cir.
2016). Exhaustion of available administrative remedies
“means using all steps that the agency holds out, and
doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the
issues on the merits).” Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 90 (2006). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a
prisoner “must file complaints and appeals in the
place, and at the time, the prison's administrative rules
require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022,
1025 (7th Cir. 2002). Illinois law ...